The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Tearful Weiner Admits Sending Explicit Picture,” is a tragedy because of all the things we’re not talking about, that is the Republican plan to eviscerate Medicare, pass more tax cuts for the rich and threaten the full faith and credit of the United States by failing to raise the debt limit.

Still, it is a political story and a sordid one at that. Congressman Weiner brought much of it on himself by lying about the situation until forced into a corner. The details do not need repeating here, but Mr. Weiner’s downfall is particularly troubling because he was a common-sense advocate of the liberal cause, one who pointed out the holes in Republican logic though often in an excessively pugilistic fashion.

The shoe is on the other foot now, and Mr. Weiner should resign before causing his Party any further embarrassment. He has already changed the momentum of the debate in the public square where the Democrats were scoring points against Paul Ryan and maybe looking to take back the House in November. Whether and how that momentum can be recovered remains to be seen.

Beyond the politics, particularly troubling is the personal dimensions of this tragedy. Mr. Weiner has been married for only one year, and to put his wife through this kind of ordeal is wrong and unfair to her. She must be suffering terribly.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Judge Denies Bail for IMF Leader Over Sex Charges,” brings to mind that famous cliche, “How the mighty have fallen.” Leaving aside for the moment some of the more improbable claims of a setup, the case shows how human nature does not change, no matter how powerful or successful a person becomes.

The arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn over accusations of trying to rape a hotel maid came despite the fact he was the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and the key player in trying to rescue the world economy from the financial crisis of 2008. He was also widely expected to run, and win, the Presidency of France. Yet now he finds himself in a solitary jail cell, as the judge, a woman it must be noted, denied him bail and proclaimed him a flight risk. This, despite his offer to wear an ankle monitor and surrender his passport and other traveling papers.

The specter of white-collar crime never fails to expose the greediness of the human heart. People who have so much — Mr. Srauss-Kahn was married by the way — never seem satisfied and always are looking for more. It’s a story as old as the history of man and illustrates our inherent fallen nature.

The details are too graphic to permit publication in this blog, but the police indicated that the forensic evidence favors the victim’s description of the events, and Mr. Strauss-Kahn is now being accused of similar conduct in another case as well.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning, “Censure Urged by Ethics Panel in Rangel Case,” shows why justice without mercy is poor comfort. One could not help but be moved by the spectre of the 80-year old Congressman pleading that his punishment contain the caveat that he had never tried to enrich himself personally.

Yet the transgressions were numerous and almost required a stern response. They took place in many circumstances over a long period of time and included failure to report rental income from a villa outside the United States, the illegal procurement and use of rent-stabilized apartments, and perhaps the most serious, soliciting a donation from the chief executive of a company with business before the House Ways & Means Committee, of which Mr. Rangel was the head.

The punishment, censure, the most severe besides expulsion, is extremely embarassing and will require Mr. Rangel to stand in the well of the House while a resolution condemning his actions is read out loud. For the 80-year old Congressman to endure this, given his pride and demeanor, will scar him for the rest of his life.

Justice without mercy. This is what it looks like, and this is what Mr. Rangel will have to endure.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Rangel Inquiry Finds Evidence Beyond Dispute,” describes the effective last stand of Representative Charles Rangel. Confronted by the case against him, Mr. Rangel pleaded for more time to hire new lawyers, then stormed out of the room when he was denied the opportunity.

Mr. Rangel had originally pleaded for the case before the ethics committee to be over before the November election and was given plenty of opportunity to raise a legal defense fund. He could have even hired his own lawyers based on his financial disclosure form. But even The New York Times, in a news article, observed the tactical nature of his departure. Leaving the room, pleading for fairness and proper representation, lets Mr. Rangel argue about the process instead of the “unsavory” facts against him.

There are three basic charges against Mr. Rangel, and the committee widely agreed after his departure that they were beyond dispute. They include accepting rent-stabilized apartments in Manhattan despite his affluent status, failure to report rental income from a villa in the Dominican Republic, and most critically, soliciting donations from executives with business before the House Ways and Means Committee, of which he was Chair. The donations involved support of the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College.

The Ethics Committee will probably reprimand or censure Representative Rangel. Explusion is very rarely suggested.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Congressional Charities Pulling in Corporate Cash,” shows how determined lobbyists and other influentials will always find a loophole in an attempt to affect lawmakers votes.

Despite campaign finance reform, limiting the amount that corporations can give to an individual campaign, donations to a candidate’s foundation are tellingly described as “one of the last major unregulated fronts in the pay-to-play culture in Washington.”

The article provides plentiful statistics of corporate contributions to these foundations, often undisclosed, when the lawmakers are simultaneously making legislative decisions about issues affecting the donor’s bottom line.

In addition to these conflicts of interest, lawmakers are exploiting the loophole themselves, using their foundations to conduct an ongoing political campaign, by supporting local projects and even selling t-shirts and caps with the lawmaker’s name on them.

The article particularly condemns the Joe Baca Foundation for giving away Thanksgiving turkeys, college scholarships and much more to local constituents. Lisa Murkowski, the recently defeated Senator from Alaska, also is cited for her misuse of a foundation to help cure breast cancer. Apparently, there are a lot of oil and gas companies who have developed a sudden interest in this cancer.

One hopes this article will lead to some legislative action, but it is the corrupt culture on Capitol Hill that deserves the ultimate blame. Unless something is done about that, all the regulations in the world will be rendered ineffective.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “For Blagojevich, a Guilty Verdict on 1 of 24 Counts,” describes the final jury verdict in the trial of the former Governor after federal authorities had spent millions of dollars and taped 500 hours of his phone conversations.

The sole guilty verdict, on lying to the FBI, represented a pittance compared to the other accusations, including racketeering, wire fraud, bribery and extortion. The jury was deadlocked or split evenly on most of the charges except for an 11-1 vote regarding trying to sell President Obama’s former Senate seat.

Well. I’ve got to say there’s something admirable about Blagojevich. He’s got a lot of chutzpah, and he’s definitely not your run-of-the-mill politician. Some of the antics he’s pulled off since his indictment, appearing on celebrity apprentice with Donald Trump, impersonating Elvis, etc., show a lot of character in the face of adversity. His insistence on his innocence, true or not, and his ability to successfully fend off federal authorities, haven’t been seen since the days of Al Capone.

Blagojevich is well on his way to becoming a sort of folk hero in light of recent developments, and the federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has got to be steaming about this turn in the case. Fitzgerald’s vow regarding a retrial has to be seen as a desparate attempt to save face.

The lead article of today’s New York Times, “Advice by Panel is to Reprimand, Not Oust, Rangel,” describes a new development in the ethics scandal swirling around Congressman Charles Rangel, a revelation by the Chairman of the Ethics investigative panel that settlement talks had centered around reprimanding Mr. Rangel. The talks apparently faltered over how much wrongdoing Congressman Rangel would admit.

The story notes that a reprimand is a mid-level, and fairly mild, punishment. It is greater than an admonishment and less than a censure, and definitely less than an expulsion. Newt Gingrich and Barney Frank have received reprimands in the past.

The revelation represents a breach of confidentiality by the Chairman of the panel, a Republican, Gene Green of Texas. Mr. Green subsequently apologized for revealing it.

That, of course, is not unusual for Republicans these days. They interrupt President Obama’s State of the Union address by yelling, “You lie,” and then apologize for it. They call the BP settlement fund Obama’s “slush fund,” and then apologize. This tactic is rapidly becoming tiresome.

The real tragedy is how this scandal has ensnared Congressman Rangel, a man who has fought for the oppressed in his Harlem district for decades, who has built a long and distinguished career of genuine service to this country. I’m not sure what the proper denouement is for this 80-year old man and how to balance the needs of justice and mercy at the same time.

But meanwhile, the Republicans on the committee are coming under pressure by their Republican peers to avoid settling the situation and go to trial for political reasons.

The lead article in The New York Times this morning, “Trial for Rangel Looms as Panel Details Charges,” describes 13 separate matters before the House Ethics Committee released yesterday as the basis for potential reprimand or even expulsion from Congress.

The matters represent the usual political overreach regarding favors, noblesse oblige and the use of political power for certain privileges. They were once common in the House and Senate, but as political actions have come under greater scrutiny in the age of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, they are no longer winked at.

The sundry violations include the use of a rent-stabilized apartment that did not serve as a primary residence, the solicitation of donations for a school named in his honor and the failure to pay taxes on a foreign villa, perhaps purchased as a hedge against inflation.

The only serious matter involves meeting with Eugene Isenberg, the CEO of an oil company, Nabors Industries, regarding a tax break before the Ways and Means Committee, and the near-simultaneous contribution of $100,000 to Mr. Rangel’s school after the Committee ruled in Isenberg’s favor. Mr. Rangel, who was previously opposed to the tax break, changed his vote just prior to the donation.

I’m sorry, but I can’t get really worked up about any of this stuff. Mr. Rangel has fought for the poor and oppressed in his Harlem district for decades, and he’s 80 years old now, and a very proud man. He deserves accolades for his many accomplishments, not approbation just prior to an election campaign for political reasons, motivating both the Democrats and Republicans at this stage. Give the poor man some peace.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “A House Panel Will Try Rangel in Ethics Cases,” describes a new finding by a House investigative panel that Representative Charles Rangel broke House ethics rules by accepting rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem as a gift significantly below market value and that he preserved a tax loophole worth half a billion dollars to a company that promised to donate money to build an educational center in his honor.

The article correctly notes the role of Mr. Rangel’s difficulties on the Democratic Party and its fight to maintain control of the House. Already, you have the minority leader, Mr. Boehner, criticizing Nancy Pelosi for failing to maintain the ethics of the House she pledged to reform.

On the other hand, Mr. Rangel is 80 years old and is a very proud and upright gentleman who has devoted his life to helping many of his constituents who are poor and needy in so many ways. He has not had an easy life and his ability to fight for what is right and stand up for those who have no voice is truly commendable.

The case now goes to another subcommittee to confirm the findings and then the full House committee on Standards of Official Conduct who can decide what type of punishment to recommend: from a letter of reprimand to expulsion from the House.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Ethics Rules for Congress Curb but Don’t End Trips.” It describes the result of legislation meant to prohibit lobbyists from paying for Congressional junkets. While it found that the number of trips declined, it still found suspect arrangements, often with a third non-profit corporation set up as an intermediary.

While Congressional representatives do need to travel to learn about and study the objects of their legislation, there is always a line that should not be crossed when there is undue influence on their resulting opinion. Also, no matter how thorough the ethics legislation may be, there are always loopholes and inconsistencies to be exploited.

For example, while lobbyists can’t pay for Congressional travel, their corporate clients can do so, and the lobbyists can meet the Congresspeople at a site as long as they don’t travel together.

So what should be done? Well, exactly what the New York Times is doing. Good investigative journalism will shame the Congressional representatives into submission, primarily because they want to keep their jobs. The worst abusers of the system will always be exposed as long as we have freedom of the press.

So, kudos to The New York Times for a good job and fulfilling their role in our democratic nation.